A recent article mentioned a word-issue that's arisen in an official proceeding concerning the death of Princess Diana. It seem that one gentleman objects to being called a paparazzo. He considers the word paparazzi to be derogatory, a smear and a slur, and wants to be referred to as a "photo-journalist".

But I'm not bringing this up to discuss the nuances of a word's "color". Rather, I want to share with you the article's headline, which gave me a completely different notion of its contents.

It read,

"Photog rejects Pap Smear"

quote:

"Photog rejects Pap Smear"

He denied being the father?

quote:

He denied being the father?

No. He refused to have a medical test (or more probably refused to allow his female partner to have one)

quote:

Pap Smear

I think this would be read in the US as meaning being called the father in an attempt to discredit (as a politician),

It's an abbreviation for Papanicolaou smear - a test of the cervical lining.

quote:

would be read in the US as meaning being called the father

My error. I used "would" instead of "could" in that sentence. "Smear" is what one politician does to another in an attempt to discredit him, thus my statement would be an alternate meaning for the headline.

quote:

Smear" is what one politician does to another in an attempt to discredit him, thus my statement would be an alternate meaning for the headline.

It has that meaning here as well.

Ha ha, shu! There is such an art in “headlining” – how to trap readers into reading (buying) the paper/magazine/whatever when you’ve actually got nothing to say ie “Scandal! Why Kate can’t marry Will!” and it’s because someone found a nude photo of the aunt of her 42nd cousin twice removed’s ex-mother-in-law’s grandson’s old school friend. Of course, we're the suckers who fall for it.

At least this one is clever. If I was a tabloid journalist I’d be proud of it.